On 29 June 2024 11:56:43 BST, Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote:
>That list is just package-specific, nothing about syntax, data types, control
>structures, package management, etc. etc.
It includes fundamental design decisions like "what does a class name look
like", and "how are classes identified across boundaries". If names aren't
universal, what does ::class return? How does resolution work in a DI
container? Etc etc etc.
I'm sure Go has answers to all those questions, but so does PHP, and I've not
seen any convincing argument why we should throw it all away and start again.
>> Rather than looking at languages which have done things completely
>> differently,
>
>There is nothing "completely" different about JavaScript, or Go for that
>matter. All three of JS, Go, and PHP are descendants of C.
You have misread what I wrote. I didn't say *the languages* are different, I
said *the decisions they have made around namespaces and packages* are
different.
There is no "genetic fallacy" or "gatekeeping" involved, I'm saying it will be
easier to apply a design that shares some characteristics with what we have,
than to rewrite the language to fit a design which shares none.
The descriptions of the *design of packages* in JS and Go make me think they
don't have enough in common with PHP to be easy to apply, so I'm suggesting we
look at other designs.
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
